414 réponses à ce sujet

[whywhywhywhy]

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  no big surprise,  Mass is wrong.

1.  It's called Narrative flow,  it gets completely disrupted when you interrupt it to go watch some random guy that has nothing to do with the plot.  Doubt me?  Go watch The Two Towers,  and just as Helm's Deep starts,  stop the movie and go watch Liar Liar,  then come back.  Tell me,  do you still have the same emotions the director intended you to have?  Nope.  You've interrupted the flow and lost your audience's attention. [/quote]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Wait, this is your argument? Are you for real? Very well, let me spell it out for you, though you should know about this, as someone who constantly portrays himself as an expert in the RPG genre.[/quote]Sounds personal.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
There is no narrative flow in RPGs, in so far as you can interrupt the experience at any time. When a player decides to perform every mineral side quest in ME1, there is no narrative flow.[/quote]Why would a player decide to do that ?  Could it be that spectres have to fund their own missions ?  Or part of the explorative nature of ME1 ?  It certainly didn't break Narritive flow for me in fact it did a much better job of it then planet scanning which I loathe.  I realize some people might be affected dfferently but if not enjoyable I can't imagine someone seeking out EVERY MINERAL SIDE QUEST.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
When a player decides to engage in planet scanning for two hours straight, there is no narrative flow.[/quote]Agreed but the topic was ME1.  And I haven't found anyone who likes planet scanning it's almost a universally hated feature so you pointing this out actually supports gatt's post.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Multiplayer will not ruin narrative flow any more than any other feature typically found in an RPG including grinding,[/quote]I disagree. Grinding doesn't break narritive flow, excessive grinding does.  Single player intergrated Multiplayer will do that in the first 5 minutes you play it because they put you in the shoes of some nameless trooper.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
resource management, or side quests; it's entirely player-based. Virmire is probably Mass Effect's most intense mission....and you save your game and quit at any point, for any number of reasons. [/quote] But that takes place out of the game, yes their is a disruption based on the amount of time it takes for you to get back to the game.  The difference is in ME3 implemented MP your still ingame away from the main story doing something that ultimately shouldn't matter but effects your SP campaign.  Your playing me3 but your story progression has stalled this creates a greater disruption if you say after a tough go of it with people (friends or strangers) quit and come back to the SP campaign some time later as your away from it longer.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Mass Effect is a 25-45 hour game experience. [/quote] Agreed ME2 is shorter though.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
People do not typically finish the narrative in one sitting, which is one aspect which separates both games and novels from films and makes a continuous narrative flow substantially more difficult to attain. Your Two Towers comparison is 100% invalid. [/quote] It's not.  Your confusing the issue when you turn a game off the longer your away from it the longer it'll take for you to get back to it most times you can pick back up from where you left off with a few minutes of adjustment.  Gameplay changes are more disruptive, especially if poorly implemented and/or unwanted.  You know when the game switches to a mode that forces you to do something only how the developers saw fit and it doesn't make sense.  Like how ME3 only implements ground MP with no space combat equivilent in a galactic war situation.   I could go on but that's enough.
[/quote]

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 04 décembre 2011 - 05:34 .

[PillarBiter]

Chris Priestly wrote...

It is an interesting read. However, we're going to prove that MP can be fin in Mass Effect 3 and we're not going to drop it.

Chris, truly, from the bottom of my heart I hope so. But it took Epic games, a company that's been making multiplayer games for decades, 3 Gears of war games to make it's multiplayer generally flawless.
I kind of find it abrasive for you guys to think you can do it in one game. But, again, I hope you succeed.

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...

Mass Effect is a 25-45 hour game experience. People do not typically finish the narrative in one sitting, which is one aspect which separates both games and novels from films and makes a continuous narrative flow substantially more difficult to attain. 

That is, if you do most of the side missions and actually bothers to do all that tedious driving on the baren wastelands to find something stupid and weak, like a Raptor III while you have Spectre gear.

If you don't and just focuses on the main missions (Citadel, Therum, Noveria, Feros, Virmire and Ilos), then you can more than likely finish ME1 in about 8 hours.

Let's face it. It was made with the completionist in mind. Those who can't give less of a f**k about searching for Wrex's old family armor or clean out the same old nest of pirates or go on a thresher maw hunt in the middle of nowhere about a dozen times for the slight chance that they might get better gear or getting the achievement for completing the majority of the game with a certain squadmate (is that a time fisher, or what?) can probably blow through this game in about an afternoon or so.

Almost all of my ME2 playthroughs lasted at least five-seven hours longer than ME1 did for me, and that's without the DLCs.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 03 décembre 2011 - 03:15 .

[Someone With Mass]

By the way, just because they have seen the game doesn't mean that they understand all of it.

They're misinterpreting the hell out of everything BioWare has said. If BW says that it's optional, then why should we doubt them? Oh, I see. It's because they're with the eeeevil EA corporation.

That's nice and all, but at least try to keep it realistic.

There's nothing that contradicts what BW has said about the functions in ME3 (maybe they exaggerated a bit, but who doesn't do that with their product these days?) besides this pathetic excuse of an article which just flips on everything they've said to make it look bad without actually paying attention to what they're really saying.

[Geth_Prime]

I find it amusing that some people think you can get the best ending of the SP campaign by playing lots of MP, even though you do terribly at SP.

MP gives you WAR ASSETS. It doesn't destroy the Reapers for you, it doesn't save your squadmates for you.

So no, someone who fails at SP choices cannot defeat the Reapers and get a sunshine and bunnies ending just by playing a few hours of co-op.

To be honest, anyone who is still complaining about MP is either misinformed, stupid, or cynical to the point that they disbelieve what BW say because they're working with evil corporate EA.

[StowyMcStowstow]

The author of this article doesn't exactly understand how the MP will work, but I get the drift.

Although a better argument would have been "why put it in in the first place? No one wanted it, no one asked for it (except a bunch of mooks who think every game should be CoD or Battlefield), so why put it in?" at this point, the only thing I care about is getting splitscreen into ME3 Multiplayer. That is literally the only thing I want for MP at this point.

[Someone With Mass]

Geth_Prime wrote...

I find it amusing that some people think you can get the best ending of the SP campaign by playing lots of MP, even though you do terribly at SP.

MP gives you WAR ASSETS. It doesn't destroy the Reapers for you, it doesn't save your squadmates for you.

So no, someone who fails at SP choices cannot defeat the Reapers and get a sunshine and bunnies ending just by playing a few hours of co-op.

To be honest, anyone who is still complaining about MP is either misinformed, stupid, or cynical to the point that they disbelieve what BW say because they're working with evil corporate EA.

That's pretty much my thought on the matter as well.

Is it too much to ask them to at least read up on the subject before throwing accusations in articles like that? You know, like most real journalists do?

By the way, other sites that have also played the multiplayer part pretty much all have said that the multiplayer will only help you in the singleplayer if you so choose. Not that it's a must.

[Il Divo]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Why would a player decide to do that ?  Could it be that spectres have to fund their own missions ?  Or part of the explorative nature of ME1 ?  It certainly didn't break Narritive flow for me in fact it did a much better job of it then planet scanning which I loathe.  I realize some people might be affected dfferently but if not enjoyable I can't imagine someone seeking out EVERY MINERAL SIDE QUEST.

I'd argue that what you are describing is irrelevant. I personally hated exploration, but that's not why it breaks narrative flow. Exploration, side quests, grinding, etc, take your pick. Every single one of these elements occurs in separation to the narrative, not in support of it. As such by necessity, they all break narrative flow, because they are mostly side attractions.

For what you are suggesting to be logically valid, you'd have to demonstrate how any exploration elements in ME1 support the main narrative, which they do not, despite the (rather weak) explanation that Spectres are expected to fund their own assignments. Fighting the Rachni in space, Corporal Tombs, killing Geth in the Argus Rho cluster, etc. None of these things support the narrative in any meaningful context. They're specifically designed as fun distractions to increase game length.

Agreed but the topic was ME1.  And I haven't found anyone who likes planet scanning it's almost a universally hated feature so you pointing this out actually supports gatt's post.

As is much of ME1's exploration, and mineral gathering. What I am pointing out does not support Gatt's position. Gatt's position is that multiplayer will break narrative flow, this I agree with. He then attempts to argue that this is somehow a major flaw, arguing that prior to its existence there has never been any breaks in the narrative in other forms of entertainment.  That is pretty conclusively false. It really doesn't matter whether you like planet scanning or exploration. Neither element has anything to do with the main storyline or supporting the narrative. It's about increasing gameplay length.

I disagree. Grinding doesn't break narritive flow, excessive grinding does.  Single player intergrated Multiplayer will do that in the first 5 minutes you play it because they put you in the shoes of some nameless trooper.

Grinding, by definition, is considered to be excessive. Simply look at the application that it has in MMOs like WoW or JRPGs, which results in players killing monsters ad infinitum for XP to level up faster. Multiplayer functionality will not break narrative flow any more than doing a side quest in any RPG, or turning off the console. It's entirely player dependent. Of all the problems I have with multiplayer, this really isn't one of them.

But that takes place out of the game, yes their is a disruption based on the amount of time it takes for you to get back to the game.  The difference is in ME3 implemented MP your still ingame away from the main story doing something that ultimately shouldn't matter but effects your SP campaign.  Your playing me3 but your story progression has stalled this creates a greater disruption if you say after a tough go of it with people (friends or strangers) quit and come back to the SP campaign some time later as your away from it longer.

Why should that make absolutely any difference? If I turn the game off, go to work, and come back 8 hours later, how is that any less of a disruption than if I log out of my file, play multiplayer, and log back in? Both scenarios result in the exact same disruption of the narrative, resulting in the same exact story progression stall. Whether you kill aliens during that stall or go sit in front of an office desk shouldn't make any meaningful difference.

It's not.  Your confusing the issue when you turn a game off the longer your away from it the longer it'll take for you to get back to it most times you can pick back up from where you left off with a few minutes of adjustment.  Gameplay changes are more disruptive, especially if poorly implemented and/or unwanted.  You know when the game switches to a mode that forces you to do something only how the developers saw fit and it doesn't make sense. 

The developers are not forcing you to do anything. You chose to switch game modes. If that's really a problem, you don't have to do it and can restrict yourself to SP activities.

As I pointed out above, gameplay changes are no more disruptive for the narrative than being away for an extended period of time, or grinding side quests for a few hours. All of those result in narrative breaks. Gatt's example of the Two Towers doesn't work, ignoring several different factors. One primary issue being that The Two Towers is a film, which is infinitely easier to finish without narrative breaks occurring due to the limited time length. It also ignores that other mediums of entertainment, including games and novels, have infinitely more opportunities for narrative breaks to occur, by virtue of requiring more time to finish the experience.

To sum it up, I think you're confusing "I'm having fun" with "narrative flow". There really isn't a necessary connection between the two. Side quests are fun, but in many ways they don't support the storyline.

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 décembre 2011 - 06:32 .

[Il Divo]

Someone With Mass wrote...

That is, if you do most of the side missions and actually bothers to do all that tedious driving on the baren wastelands to find something stupid and weak, like a Raptor III while you have Spectre gear.

If you don't and just focuses on the main missions (Citadel, Therum, Noveria, Feros, Virmire and Ilos), then you can more than likely finish ME1 in about 8 hours.

Let's face it. It was made with the completionist in mind. Those who can't give less of a f**k about searching for Wrex's old family armor or clean out the same old nest of pirates or go on a thresher maw hunt in the middle of nowhere about a dozen times for the slight chance that they might get better gear or getting the achievement for completing the majority of the game with a certain squadmate (is that a time fisher, or what?) can probably blow through this game in about an afternoon or so.

Almost all of my ME2 playthroughs lasted at least five-seven hours longer than ME1 did for me, and that's without the DLCs.

True, but you do see my point that alot of people, even those interested mostly in the main storyline, will inevitably be distracted by one of these "side attractions". The main storyline isn't that long (though still more than twice the length of your standard film), but when you pile on all the small additions (side quests, exploration, etc), the end result is that many players will not finish the game in one sitting. In that sense, the addition of multiplayer really won't hurt narrative flow in any significant way that games have not been affected before.

[BlowingTrees]

very weak arguments against the multiplayer addition. as someone said, since the MP is being developed by a whole separate team than the SP, it shouldn't effect the SP experience at all. and since it is completely optional and by no means necessary, if you dont wanna play it, well simply dont play it. but i think its a smart move because even though ME is one of the few series with a campaign worth going through multiple times, this addition will add endless replay value to the third installment. plus, its alway a blast to enjoy your favorite games with some friends and teamwork. i think if they are able to properly and successfully intertwine Commander Shepard's story in SP with the story aspect of the MP, it will be a complete plus for the game as a whole. im all for it.

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...

True, but you do see my point that alot of people, even those interested mostly in the main storyline, will inevitably be distracted by one of these "side attractions". The main storyline isn't that long (though still more than twice the length of your standard film), but when you pile on all the small additions (side quests, exploration, etc), the end result is that many players will not finish the game in one sitting. In that sense, the addition of multiplayer really won't hurt narrative flow in any significant way that games have not been affected before.

Also true.

The multiplayer is pretty much a side mission in itself. All you're doing is clearing out enemies, gathering supplies, uploading/decrypting data or bringing things to a certain zone for a set amount of time until either the whole team is dead or they've fulfilled the objectives, in which case they move on to the next area.

Almost the same as when you're traveling to different planets in ME1 and 2 to complete different tasks before/after tackling the main story.

[Geth_Prime]

To be honest, I don't see what's so bad about simple co-op wave fights. ME3's combat looks like a lot of fun to me. Am I too easily pleased? Simple-minded? Maybe so, but I can see myself spending a lot of time with Galaxy At War. Pulling off insane power combos with other players, fending off Phantoms, Atlases and Banshees, performing brilliant kills in front of all my friends...can't I just enjoy that? It's added value to my game, and I can practically guarantee I'll also spend close to a hundred hours with each SP campaign (I'm not one to rush).

Many people ask why BW added MP, my question is: why not? If Casey and his team are to be believed (and call me naive, but I have faith in them), the development of MP didn't detract from the SP. In fact, I regularly talk with a member of the Montreal studio and he has told me the Montreal team actually added resources to SP development. So what's the problem? It's just a slice of optional fun in our favourite universe.

[Geth_Prime]

BlowingTrees wrote...

very weak arguments against the multiplayer addition. as someone said, since the MP is being developed by a whole separate team than the SP, it shouldn't effect the SP experience at all. and since it is completely optional and by no means necessary, if you dont wanna play it, well simply dont play it. but i think its a smart move because even though ME is one of the few series with a campaign worth going through multiple times, this addition will add endless replay value to the third installment. plus, its alway a blast to enjoy your favorite games with some friends and teamwork. i think if they are able to properly and successfully intertwine Commander Shepard's story in SP with the story aspect of the MP, it will be a complete plus for the game as a whole. im all for it.

+1 

[Someone With Mass]

Geth_Prime wrote...

To be honest, I don't see what's so bad about simple co-op wave fights. ME3's combat looks like a lot of fun to me. Am I too easily pleased? Simple-minded? Maybe so, but I can see myself spending a lot of time with Galaxy At War. Pulling off insane power combos with other players, fending off Phantoms, Atlases and Banshees, performing brilliant kills in front of all my friends...can't I just enjoy that? It's added value to my game, and I can practically guarantee I'll also spend close to a hundred hours with each SP campaign (I'm not one to rush).

Many people ask why BW added MP, my question is: why not? If Casey and his team are to be believed (and call me naive, but I have faith in them), the development of MP didn't detract from the SP. In fact, I regularly talk with a member of the Montreal studio and he has told me the Montreal team actually added resources to SP development. So what's the problem? It's just a slice of optional fun in our favourite universe.

No, that's pretty much how I see it as well.

Not to mention that we can play as other races with different abilities too.

[Iakus]

Geth_Prime wrote...

I find it amusing that some people think you can get the best ending of the SP campaign by playing lots of MP, even though you do terribly at SP.

MP gives you WAR ASSETS. It doesn't destroy the Reapers for you, it doesn't save your squadmates for you.

Funny, I could have sworn you need both to get the best ending.

So no, someone who fails at SP choices cannot defeat the Reapers and get a sunshine and bunnies ending just by playing a few hours of co-op.

I'll bet it helps, though

To be honest, anyone who is still complaining about MP is either misinformed, stupid, or cynical to the point that they disbelieve what BW say because they're working with evil corporate EA.

The hate is strong in this one...

Modifié par iakus, 03 décembre 2011 - 07:56 .

[Isaidlunch]

So most of the reasons consist of it sends a bad message, slippery slopes about social networking in future games and that it's been done before (duh). They even admitted they enjoyed the hands-on experience, they're being controversial for attention.

[Iakus]

Geth_Prime wrote...

To be honest, I don't see what's so bad about simple co-op wave fights. ME3's combat looks like a lot of fun to me. Am I too easily pleased? Simple-minded? Maybe so, but I can see myself spending a lot of time with Galaxy At War. Pulling off insane power combos with other players, fending off Phantoms, Atlases and Banshees, performing brilliant kills in front of all my friends...can't I just enjoy that? It's added value to my game, and I can practically guarantee I'll also spend close to a hundred hours with each SP campaign (I'm not one to rush).

And to me coop looks like space on a disk that could have gone to another chapter of Shepard's story.  ANother hub world, more quests, more battles, more dialogue.

What's this, MP budget wouldn't have gone to the SP budget anyway?  Perhaps.  But the space would have.  Can we truly believe that everything that was going into the SP campaign was put in, they saw an extra gig of space and went "Huh.  What else could we put in there?"  Or is it more likely that at some point something got "priced out' space-wise to make room for coop?

Many people ask why BW added MP, my question is: why not? If Casey and his team are to be believed (and call me naive, but I have faith in them), the development of MP didn't detract from the SP. In fact, I regularly talk with a member of the Montreal studio and he has told me the Montreal team actually added resources to SP development. So what's the problem? It's just a slice of optional fun in our favourite universe.

Here's why not;  It's Shepard's story.  If Galaxy at War was a separate game or even a seperate DLC, this would be a nonissue for me.  But Bioware is trying to put two games into one.  

To you it may be fun.  To me it's a disincentive to buy new.

[Someone With Mass]

iakus wrote...

Funny, I could have sworn you need both to get the best ending.

No. You don't.

You see, you have to use that gray blob thing between your ears to get the best ending.

[CroGamer002]

iakus wrote...

Geth_Prime wrote...

I find it amusing that some people think you can get the best ending of the SP campaign by playing lots of MP, even though you do terribly at SP.

MP gives you WAR ASSETS. It doesn't destroy the Reapers for you, it doesn't save your squadmates for you.

Funny, I could have sworn you need both to get the best ending.

*facepalm*


Bioware said multiple times you DON'T need to play Co-Op to get best ending.

It's just an optional alternative to get best ending.

[Iakus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

iakus wrote...

Funny, I could have sworn you need both to get the best ending.

No. You don't.

You see, you have to use that gray blob thing between your ears to get the best ending.

War Assets AND decision making.  You need both.

MP gives you War Assets, one of the things you need.

[Iakus]

Mesina2 wrote...

*facepalm*


Bioware said multiple times you DON'T need to play Co-Op to get best ending.

It's just an optional alternative to get best ending.

It's only an "alternative" if it's one orthe other.

If you can do both, it's an "addition' to make things easier.

[Geth_Prime]

iakus wrote...


War Assets AND decision making.  You need both.


MP gives you War Assets, one of the things you need.

You can get all the war assets you need in the SP. Now stop being a ******.

[Someone With Mass]

iakus wrote...
War Assets AND decision making.  You need both.

MP gives you War Assets, one of the things you need.

Yeah, that's what they've said all this time. You can get that in the singleplayer too.

Oh, and you'll need the loyalty of certain races to complete one task the war assets can't.

Seriously, how is this so hard to comprehend?

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 03 décembre 2011 - 08:38 .

[Balek-Vriege]

iakus wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

*facepalm*


Bioware said multiple times you DON'T need to play Co-Op to get best ending.

It's just an optional alternative to get best ending.

It's only an "alternative" if it's one orthe other.

If you can do both, it's an "addition' to make things easier.

Exactly and guess what?  Both as an "alternative" and as an "addition" are possible.

If you play only SP and are a completionist you can get enough or max out (if there is a max) your War Assets/GR without MP to get the best endings (when it comes to how GR/Assets affect the end game).  That is one way and the main way of acquiring Assests/GR.

An "alternative" way is playing lots and lots of MP to get a lot of bonus assets (your level 20 MP characters) and GR.  Making doing assignments on the side much less important.  By how much?  Who knows.  We still have to take into account that assignments will have other rewards other than GR.
 
Or you can pick option 3.  You can be a completionist in Singleplayer getting all the possible GR there and play MP to get additional GR on top of that.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.  You can choose to play one of these three ways.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 03 décembre 2011 - 08:39 .

[Drone223]

Someone With Mass wrote...

iakus wrote...
War Assets AND decision making.  You need both.

MP gives you War Assets, one of the things you need.

Yeah, that's what they've said all this time. You can get that in the singleplayer too.

Oh, and you'll need the loyalty of certain races to complete one task the war assets can't.

Seriously, how is this so hard to comprehend?

BSN